The filter: How the media will measure Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech Thursday night was one of the two most important moments of the general election — the other is the first debate — for the simple reason that it gave him a chance to speak directly to millions of people, avoiding the “media filter” through which politicians ordinarily speak to voters.

But that doesn’t mean the media filter — that contingent of perhaps a couple hundred journalists, operatives and commentators — doesn’t matter. History shows that the consensus view of this community of insiders — no matter how fair or unfair the judgments — will powerfully shape the way in which Romney’s words echo in the days and weeks after the speech.

Text Size

Romney's full RNC speech

What’s more, it is virtually inevitable that there will be a consensus view. Even if reactions and analysis are mixed immediately after the speech, a conventional wisdom about big political performances almost always gels within 24 hours.

The things the people who collectively represent the media filter were looking for in Romney’s speech were no mystery. It was clear from the pre-speech commentary that Romney would be judged by the chattering class by his answers to a specific set of questions.

Below is POLITICO’s list of the questions facing Romney. Different people might frame the questions differently, but the reality is just about any hack — journalist or operative — roaming the Tampa Bay Times Forum was watching the speech through a similar lens.

This list was originally written, and an early version appeared on the site, before Romney spoke. Now that the speech is over, you can read our early take on the answers in italics in the story below.

In other words, does Romney give the audience a way to get him — explaining what makes him tick in an appealing way — and show that he gets ordinary voters and the challenges they face.

Every reporter knows Romney’s campaign is obsessed with moving the dial on a specific polling question: Does he relate to ordinary Americans? His staff talks about it relentlessly and openly wonders whether the boss can ever pull this off.

The other side of the question is whether ordinary Americans can relate to Romney. A not-so-subtle subtext of this campaign is that Romney is a rich, out-of-touch CEO with a religion many Americans don’t understand and a personal manner that comes off as weird and stiff. Can he establish a more compelling human connection?

Post-speech verdict: Yeah, sure, kinda—Romney Thursday night showed he “gets it” as well as he is ever going to get it. He seemed like a comfortable and accessible figure, if hardly an electric one; there was nothing distant or exotic about his performance or personal presence. By the end, he even showed a little punch—he finished strong, even passionately, by his standards. On the other hand, his nods to the suffering of struggling workers, such as a reference to the person who lost a $22-an-hour job and instead takes two $9-an-hour jobs to make ends meet, rang a little hollow. The reality is that Romney regularly interacts with few such people, and is far removed from this part of the economy.

Does he make a coherent case for his candidacy?

Republicans loathe the Obama presidency in a visceral way. But sputtering rage is not sufficient to convince voters to fire an incumbent.

One reason Paul Ryan’s Wednesday night speech was effective is that — in a tone more of sorrow than anger — he made an easy-to-follow argument that Obama had failed to meet the challenges of the moment and that Romney would succeed. The message was not just a negative “fire them” but also a positive “hire us.” Can Romney connect the dots as well?

Post-speech verdict: A strong yes. The argument, whether or not people find it compelling, was clear and direct: Obama is a president of big promises and little achievement. Romney said his personal history shows him as a no-nonsense man of results. One line captured it best. “President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family.” He managed to indict Obama without coming off as mean. He then made his case crisply for markets versus government, the essence of his political philosophy.

Well, I'll be watching to see if he thanks the troops that are fighting and dying for our freedom on foreign soil right now, unlike almost ALL of the other conservatives who have completely ignored them, including his wife and his VP pick.

I just happen to think that's what someone who wants to be CIC should do.

I think the troops, and their sacrificing families, are important and deserve the heartfelt thanks of the man who wants to be president.

I've been very critical of Chris Matthews in the past week, however, I flipped over to MSNBC after the Jeb Bush speech concerning education, and was very surprised and pleased with Matthews support of child education vs. the destructive Union education policies currently in place.

Parents need choice for whatever school is best for their childsi education.

So, Chris, good for you. I was impressed with your stand against the other contributors of the show.

A note to Chris Matthews: It is better when you stand up for what you believe is good or what can be changed for the good. It is not good when you label people racist for having different opinions.

I am impressed with the opportunity this will give The Church of Latter Day Saints to become mainstream and introduce people to their religion. Mormonism should really grow with such a high profile person as President. It will be an opportunity for people to hear and understand their faith in a whole new way.

Huge risk on Mormonism tonight. I think it backfires on him. The southern baptists have been hammering on Mormonism as a non christian cult for a hundred years. I think this loses him some votes tonight.

And if Romney doesn't jump thru any of the hoops POLITICO has just discussed, there will be hell to pay! Oh wait, even if he does jump through all of them POLITICO will still through in as much negative spin as possible. There is no mystery here. The hubris and condescension in this article is on par with the collective ego of most POLTIICO contributors. Shocking? No.

I have to say it's kind of silly how POLITICO wants to appear that they are giving Romney a chance to check off some boxes when in reality, the response to his speech is probably already written. Anyone care to wager what the tone of that response will be?

the only measure needed is that romney's economic plan doesn't add up according to the Tax Policy Center.

the GOP rap on president obama as stated by paul Ryan (of course many others posting on politico) candidate obama made promises he didn't keep/broke.

my question is if that's so bad, what politcian hasn't, then why vote for candidate romney when analysis conducted by independent economic policy groups TPC and CBPP say his "promises" mathematically don't add up, are not possible?

The quality of the speech that Romney delivers will mean nothing. If Romney gave the greatest speech since Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount or Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address the Main Stream Media would still trash it. I am sure most of the writers already have written their analysis and are just waiting for the speech to be over so they can file their stories.

For example, Christie gave an excellent speech, just not the rabid dog attack speech that the MSM was expecting. And they went on and on about the failure to mention Romney until well into the speech. But as the MSM knows the speech was vetted by the Romney campaign before it was delivered and obviously they liked the tone. The RNC has for the most part been trying to put on a positive vision of what they want to do and the future of the nation.. This is in contrast to the hatefest that is going to be propagated in Charlotte next week by Obama's henchman where they will accuse Romney and the Republicans fo being responsbile for everything from the drought to the Holocaust. The Main Stream Media likes to make fun of the approval rating of Congress. Well there is one institution in America with an even lower approval rating and that is the MSM so take a good look in the mirror.

I read one of the great comical articles ever written on this site a couple of weeks ago. The article stated that the media was concerned about the tone and direction of the campaign. In their typical sanctimonious attitude they acted as if they were above the fray and were abhorred by the way things are going. The truth is the MSM HYPOCRITS are largely responsible for the ugliness that politics has become. They fail to examine the issues objectively, they take every opportunity to attack the candidate that they do not favor, they repeat the attacks that their candidate makes without question.

I will watch with amusement the way the MSM behaves during next weeks DNC. I would be willing to bet almost any amount that there will be a dearth of critical analysis reagarding what is said and transpires there. But the media will feel good about what they do as they live in their own little echo chamber and believe they are above reproach.But beyond the bubble in which you live the 90% of the population who knows what kind of frauds you are will continue to render their judgement.

WE all know what the "Card Carrying Obama Media" will say about Romney! Romney will be jammed, bammed, misquoted and the predominant biased media will do all they can to destroy him. There is a movie out OBAMA 2016 that is a great documentary and our loyal Obama Sticker wearing media has ignored. So if you expect honesty, fair evaluation and solid journalism turn off your TV and don't read a lot of the Media. In the meantime - Hillary is running as far away from Obama as she can scoot!

I've been very critical of Chris Matthews in the past week, however, I flipped over to MSNBC after the Jeb Bush speech concerning education, and was very surprised and pleased with Matthews support of child education vs. the destructive Union education policies currently in place.

Parents need choice for whatever school is best for their childsi education.

So, Chris, good for you. I was impressed with your stand against the other contributors of the show.

A note to Chris Matthews: It is better when you stand up for what you believe is good or what can be changed for the good. It is not good when you label people racist for having different opinions.

Good job on education. More of that please.

ya still got a little growing up to do Sue, over the past week you've singled out one or two talking heads, an outlet for something THEY ALL DO ACROSS THE BOARD- CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CBS, NBC, CNBC FNS, ABC etc etc.

you sounded quite foolish as most everyone in america knows the game being played. Americans' Confidence in Television News Drops to New Low

www.gallup.com/.../americans-confidence-television-news-drops-ne...

You +1'd this publicly. Undo

Jul 10, 2012

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' confidence in television news is at a new low by one percentage point, with 21% of adults expressing a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in it. This marks a decline from 27% last year and from 46% when Gallup started tracking confidence in television news in 1993.

Liberals' and Moderates' Faith Plummets Below Conservatives'

Liberals and moderates lost so much confidence in television news this year -- 11 and 10 points, respectively -- that their views are now more akin to conservatives' views. This marks a turnaround from the pattern seen since 2009, in which liberals expressed more confidence than conservatives. Conservatives' views of television news were last similar to liberals' in June 2008, before the last presidential election. However, moderates are significantly less confident now than they were then, 20% vs. 28%.